- NEP 1968, 1988-1992, 2020
- Funding Education in India
- GER
- GPI
- Trends of Muslim GER
- 21st Century Skills
- MEES
The National Policy on Education (1968) was India’s first official education policy, shaped by the recommendations of the Kothari Commission (1964–66). It aimed to create a uniform and equitable educational system across the country. Here’s a detailed breakdown of the key components and what they meant:
1. National Integration and Educational Objectives
Education was seen as a tool to promote national unity and economic development.
Emphasized value education and the cultivation of a scientific temper.
Aimed to develop democratic citizenship, social responsibility, and moral values among students.
2. Free and Compulsory Education
Every child should receive free and compulsory education up to the age of 14 (aligning with Article 45 of the Constitution).
Urged states to eliminate dropouts and stagnation through better planning and infrastructure.
3. Languages and the Three-Language Formula
Promoted the Three-Language Formula:
Mother tongue or regional language
Official language of the Union (Hindi)
English or another modern Indian language
Special emphasis on Sanskrit as a classical language for national heritage.
Encouraged the use of regional languages in higher education.
4. Equalization of Educational Opportunity
Addressed disparities due to caste, gender, economic status, and regional imbalances.
Special focus on:
Girls’ education
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST)
Children with disabilities
Sought to bridge urban-rural educational gaps.
5. Science Education and Research
Encouraged widespread science teaching to foster inquiry and innovation.
Strengthened scientific research infrastructure in higher education institutions.
6. Education Structure: 10+2+3 System
Recommended a standardized structure:
10 years of general education
2 years of higher secondary (academic/vocational)
3 years of university education
This structure later became the backbone of India’s school system.
7. Teachers: Status and Training
Teachers were considered key to national development.
Called for:
Better salary, service conditions, and career progression
Pre-service and in-service training
Freedom in academic matters, encouraging creativity and research
Advocated the establishment of a National Education Service.
8. Curriculum Development
Curriculum to include:
Work experience
Moral education
Physical education and sports
Community service
Emphasized vocational education to meet diverse talents and national needs.
9. Educational Planning and Administration
Called for decentralized but coordinated planning at national, state, and local levels.
Proposed establishment of State Education Boards and planning units in education departments.
10. Educational Finance
Recommended increasing public expenditure on education to 6% of national income.
Urged efficient resource use and community participation in educational development.
11. Examination Reforms
Suggested reducing the importance of public examinations.
Promoted continuous internal assessment and comprehensive evaluation systems.
12. Technical and Vocational Education
Strengthened polytechnic and technical institutions to meet industry demands.
Linked education to employment generation and national skill development.
13. Higher Education
Aimed to expand access while improving quality.
Supported the creation of more universities with autonomous status.
Emphasized research, academic freedom, and interdisciplinary learning.
Summary Table
| Component | Policy Approach |
|---|---|
| Access | Free & compulsory education till age 14 |
| Language | 3-language formula + Sanskrit + regional medium |
| Equality | Priority to girls, SC/ST, minorities, disabled |
| Teachers | Better pay, training, and academic freedom |
| Curriculum | Moral, physical, work-based learning + science education |
| Higher Education | Research-oriented, autonomous institutions |
| Finance | Target of 6% of GDP for education |
| Structure | 10+2+3 model standardized |
🔗 You can read the full original document here: NPE 1968 (PDF)
Based on the National Policy on Education (NPE) 1986, available at education.gov.in (PDF), here’s a detailed explanation of how the policy addresses the minority segment in India:
1. Protection of Constitutional Rights
The policy reaffirms the Constitutional provisions under:
Article 29: Protection of interests of minorities in conserving language, script, or culture.
Article 30: Rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.
Explanation:
These articles are central to the policy’s framework, ensuring minorities can educate their children in ways that reflect their culture and identity, free from undue state interference.
2. Promotion of Minority Educational Institutions
The policy encourages:
The autonomy of minority-run institutions, provided they maintain academic standards.
Government assistance to such institutions to strengthen their infrastructure and teaching capacity.
Explanation:
This enables minorities (both religious and linguistic) to build and run schools and colleges that align with their cultural values, while also receiving support to meet modern educational standards.
3. Special Focus on Educational Backwardness
The policy identifies certain minority communities as educationally disadvantaged, necessitating:
Targeted interventions, such as scholarships, remedial coaching, and access programs.
Community-based educational planning to address specific local challenges.
Explanation:
Minority groups often face compounded socio-economic barriers; this provision ensures the state’s role in bridging those gaps through special schemes and localized educational efforts.
4. Language and Cultural Identity
The policy supports:
Education in the mother tongue or minority language at the primary level.
Preservation and promotion of minority scripts and traditions through curriculum and pedagogy.
Explanation:
Language is a key vehicle of cultural identity. Supporting minority languages in early education fosters inclusion, retention, and respect for cultural diversity.
5. Financial Assistance and Infrastructure Support
The policy mentions:
Subsidies and grants-in-aid for minority institutions.
Inclusion of minority areas in educational development schemes (like area-specific infrastructure upgrades, teacher training, etc.).
Explanation:
This ensures that financial constraints do not hinder the growth and quality of minority institutions. It helps level the playing field, especially in rural and underdeveloped minority-dominated regions.
6. Women and Girls from Minority Communities
There’s additional emphasis on:
Girls’ education in minority communities.
Integration of women empowerment initiatives in minority-dominated areas.
Explanation:
Recognizing the intersectionality of gender and minority status, the policy aims to break down dual barriers through focused girl-child education drives and female literacy missions.
Summary Table
| Policy Provision | How It Helps Minorities |
|---|---|
| Constitutional backing | Legal protection for minority-run schools |
| Institutional promotion | Encourages building and managing culturally aligned educational institutions |
| Language support | Preserves cultural identity via education in mother tongue |
| Financial assistance | Ensures resource access for quality education |
| Targeted inclusion programs | Bridges learning gaps in backward minority areas |
| Women & girls focus | Uplifts minority women through education |
📄 Source: National Policy on Education PDF – education.gov.in
The 1968 National Policy on Education (NPE) focused on establishing a national education system with a 10+2+3 structure, emphasizing compulsory education for children up to age 14 and promoting scientific research. The 1986 NPE, in contrast, aimed to modernize education, address disparities, and enhance quality through curricular and pedagogical reforms. It also emphasized vocational training, teacher education, and inclusive programs.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
NEP 1968:
- Key Focus:
- Establishing a national education system, compulsory education for children up to 14, and promoting scientific research.
- Structure:
- Introduced the 10+2+3 structure (10 years of schooling, 2 years of higher secondary, and 3 years of undergraduate degree).
- Limitations:
- Faced challenges due to inadequate action plans and funding.
- Context: Implemented under Indira Gandhi.
NEP 1986:
- Key Focus:
- Modernization, addressing disparities, enhancing quality, and promoting vocational training.
- Features:
- Universal access to quality education.
- Reduction of disparities.
- Strengthened teacher education.
- Emphasis on vocational education.
- Promotion of inclusive programs.
Context: Implemented under Rajiv Gandhi.
Improvements over 1968:
Addressed the shortcomings of the 1968 policy by focusing on modernization, teacher education, and inclusive programs.
In essence, the 1986 policy built upon the foundations laid by the 1968 policy, addressing its shortcomings and introducing new elements to meet the evolving needs of the Indian education system.
A detailed comparative analysis of how the National Education Policies of 1968, 1986 (modified in 1992), and 2020 address the educational needs and empowerment of minority communities and girls/women in India:
🔍 COMPARATIVE OVERVIEW: MINORITY EDUCATION & GIRL CHILD EMPOWERMENT
Policy Element | NPE 1968 | NPE 1986 / 1992 (Modified) | NEP 2020 |
Recognition of Minorities | Recognized minorities as a group needing attention for equal educational opportunity. | Stronger focus; explicitly identified educational backwardness among religious & linguistic minorities. | Explicitly recognizes minorities as underrepresented groups within SEDGs (Socio-Economically Disadvantaged Groups). |
Institutional Autonomy | Affirmed constitutional rights under Articles 29 & 30 to run minority institutions. | Promoted equal respect and financial aid for minority-managed institutions, ensuring quality and inclusion. | Supports autonomy of minority institutions while stressing academic standards and inclusion. |
Language Support | Supported regional and classical languages (like Sanskrit), minor support for mother tongue. | Recommended preservation of cultural identity through education in mother tongue of linguistic minorities. | Strong support for multilingualism, including mother tongue education till Grade 5, aiding minority identity. |
Financial Aid for Minorities | Not explicitly addressed. | Proposed increased aid for infrastructure and teachers in minority-run institutions. | Recommends targeted scholarships, cash incentives, and resource centers in minority-dense areas. |
Special Education Zones (SEZs) | Not applicable. | Not mentioned. | Introduced Special Education Zones to cater to educationally backward regions (includes minority areas). |
Community-Based Participation | Encouraged local community involvement. | Promoted collaboration with NGOs and community groups including minority leadership. | Strong push for community engagement, school complexes, and local governance. |
🎓 GIRLS’ EDUCATION AND EMPOWERMENT
Policy Element | NPE 1968 | NPE 1986 / 1992 (Modified) | NEP 2020 |
Recognition of Gender Gap | Acknowledged disparity; called for “special emphasis on girls’ education.” | Dedicated section on Education for Women’s Equality; called it a “critical component of national development.” | Recognizes girls/women as SEDGs; identifies gender gap as a major barrier to equity. |
Access & Enrolment | Promoted universal elementary education, including girls. | Proposed non-formal education, hostels, and female teachers in rural/remote areas. | Targets universal foundational literacy, increased GER, and free boarding schools for girls in disadvantaged regions. |
Vocational & Higher Education Access | Limited mention. | Proposed skill development and vocational training for girls. | Expands access to STEM, leadership, and vocational education for girls and women. |
Empowerment through Curriculum | No direct mention. | Proposed curriculum reform to eliminate gender stereotyping. | Curriculum includes gender-sensitization, life skills, reproductive health, and rights education. |
Teacher Training on Gender Issues | Not mentioned. | Proposed sensitization of educators on gender equity. | Mandates training teachers on inclusive & gender-equitable practices. |
Support Systems | Not mentioned. | Provision of childcare facilities, flexible timings, and distance education for women. | Special provisions for mothers, single women, married girls in continuing education. |
🔑 KEY DIFFERENCES & PROGRESS
Category | NPE 1968 | NPE 1986/92 | NEP 2020 |
Approach to Minorities | General equality focus | Programmatic and supportive | Holistic, targeted, data-driven interventions |
Girls’ Education Focus | Included in universal education goal | Specific programs for girl child education | Integrated approach across curriculum, infrastructure, finance |
Equity Orientation | Moral and constitutional basis | Policy-led inclusion strategies | Outcome-focused, backed by implementation frameworks |
🧭 Summary of Policy Evolution
- NPE 1968: Set the moral and constitutional framework for equality and inclusion, including minorities and girls.
- NPE 1986/92: Recognized educational backwardness, created focused programs and emphasized women's equality.
- NEP 2020: Goes beyond recognition—creates a systemic response using data, geography (SEZs), social equity indicators, and flexible pathways for both minorities and girls.
A comparative table chart highlighting the commitments of the 1968, 1986/92, and 2020 National Education Policies with a focus on Minority Communities and Girls/Women's Education & Empowerment:
📊 Comparative Table: Focus on Minorities & Girls in Indian Education Policies
Policy Component | NPE 1968 | NPE 1986 / 1992 | NEP 2020 |
Recognition of Minorities | Mentioned under equal opportunity for all | Identified educationally backward minorities for targeted efforts | Minorities included under SEDGs, with emphasis on inclusion and redressal of underrepresentation |
Institutional Autonomy | Affirmed rights under Articles 29 & 30 | Supported funding and autonomy of minority institutions | Supports academic autonomy while encouraging standardization and inclusivity |
Mother Tongue / Language Policy | Encouraged regional and classical languages | Promoted education in minority mother tongues | Strong push for early education in home language, includes minority languages |
Special Focus Areas / Zones | Not specified | Not specified | Introduced Special Education Zones (SEZs) in minority-concentrated, underrepresented areas |
Financial Aid / Scholarships | Not clearly stated | Proposed financial support for minority institutions | Recommends targeted scholarships, cash incentives, and transport for SEDG students |
Curriculum & Identity Support | No curriculum focus | Minor cultural sensitivity mentioned | Inclusive curriculum reflecting diverse cultures, values, gender & minority identities |
Community Participation | Encouraged community involvement | Collaborated with NGOs and community leaders | Stronger local school governance and community-led outreach |
Recognition of Gender Gaps | Acknowledged need to support girls | Women’s equality defined as a critical policy area | Identifies gender as a key axis of disadvantage under SEDGs |
Access to Girls’ Education | Emphasized free and compulsory education for all | Promoted hostels, female teachers, distance education for girls | Prioritizes universal access, boarding schools for girls, and zero-dropout goals |
STEM and Vocational Training for Girls | No specific mention | Vocational training recommended | Promotes girls in STEM, leadership roles, entrepreneurship & vocational streams |
Teacher Sensitization | Not addressed | Emphasized gender sensitization of educators | Mandatory training on gender equity and inclusive classroom practices |
Support for Adult / Women Learners | Not addressed | Recommended childcare, flexible timing, distance learning | Offers re-entry, flexible pathways, and support for mothers, working women, dropouts |
✅ Conclusion
- Progressive evolution: From general equality in 1968 → targeted schemes in 1986 → systemic, inclusive, and data-driven frameworks in 2020.
- NEP 2020 offers the most comprehensive and actionable plan for empowering minorities and girls/women through equity, access, and quality.
A focused look at the disadvantages and challenges faced by the Minority community and Girls/Women, as highlighted or implied in the NEP 2020:
🚫 Disadvantages Faced by Minorities in NEP 2020
Disadvantage | Explanation from NEP 2020 |
Underrepresentation in Education | NEP 2020 acknowledges that religious and linguistic minorities are significantly underrepresented at both school and higher education levels. |
Regional & Economic Disparities | Many minority communities live in educationally backward regions, with limited access to quality schools and teachers. |
Language Barriers | While NEP promotes mother-tongue education, minority languages often lack formal recognition or curriculum support, causing exclusion. |
Limited Awareness of Opportunities | Minority students often lack access to information about scholarships, entrance exams, and higher education pathways. |
Cultural Disconnect in Curriculum | Textbooks and pedagogy may not reflect minority cultures or histories, leading to alienation or lack of engagement. |
Social Discrimination and Bias | Though not directly stated, NEP 2020 acknowledges "socially and economically disadvantaged groups," implicitly including minorities facing discrimination in institutions. |
Digital Divide | Many minority-populated areas have poor digital infrastructure, affecting their access to online learning and EdTech tools. |
🚫 Disadvantages Faced by Girls/Women in NEP 2020
Disadvantage | Explanation from NEP 2020 |
Gender Gap in Enrolment & Retention | Girls are less likely to enroll or complete schooling, especially in rural or conservative areas. NEP identifies girls among key SEDGs. |
Early Marriage & Dropout | NEP indirectly references social issues like child marriage, which leads to high dropout rates among adolescent girls. |
Lack of Female-Friendly Infrastructure | Many schools lack toilets, hostels, and safety measures, especially in remote areas, affecting girls' attendance and retention. |
Gender Stereotypes in Subjects | Girls are often discouraged from STEM, sports, and leadership roles, due to societal norms and lack of female role models. |
Limited Access to Menstrual Hygiene Support | While NEP promotes health awareness, it does not explicitly address menstrual hygiene management, a major dropout reason. |
Lack of Support for Women Learners | Although NEP offers re-entry pathways, working mothers and married girls still face social stigma and lack flexible access. |
Safety Concerns | NEP highlights the importance of safe school environments but does not detail mechanisms to address harassment or abuse in schools/colleges. |
✍️ Key Insights
- NEP 2020 is progressive in intent but highlights systemic gaps—without always offering concrete implementation strategies to bridge these disadvantages.
- There is a need for specific policies and measurable action plans for minorities and girls, beyond the general SEDG classification.
- Addressing these disadvantages requires strong local governance, targeted budgets, and socio-cultural reforms in education systems.
A comprehensive analysis of the National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education (NCFTE) 2009, focusing on its main goals, strengths, and identified gaps—particularly concerning minority communities, girls, and inclusive education:
🎯 1. Vision & Foundations
NCFTE 2009 aims to prepare professional, humane teachers who can support children’s holistic development and social justice. It emphasizes:
- Constructivist teaching based on Piaget and Vygotsky, which fosters socially-responsive classrooms internationaljournalcorner.com+15researchgate.net+15iitms.co.in+15.
- A paradigm shift from rote learning to interactive, dialogue-rich pedagogy .
- Integrating values like peace, equity, sustainable development, and human rights, tying teacher education to constitutional and cultural ethos .
♿ 2. Focus on Inclusive Education
✅ Strengths
- Explicitly calls out teacher shortages in addressing social exclusion among SC/ST/minorities and children with disabilities itforchange.net.
- Defines inclusive education as ensuring access and success for all, irrespective of physical, mental, or social backgrounds itforchange.net+1technologyof2017.blogspot.com+1.
- Teachers must be trained to confront biases and adapt infrastructure, pedagogy, and evaluation to be inclusive itforchange.net.
👧 3. Addressing Gender & Girls’ Education
✅ Strengths
- Acknowledges lower enrollment and retention of girls, encouraging teacher sensitivity in engaging female students itforchange.net+1technologyof2017.blogspot.com+1.
- Promotes gender-equity perspectives, encouraging future citizens to respect gender and human rights in education scribd.com.
- Highlights the importance of teacher awareness on gender issues, placing gender equity firmly in the curriculum.
💔 4. Gaps & Remaining Challenges
Minorities & Socially Excluded Groups
- While inclusivity is emphasized, specific pedagogical strategies for linguistic or religious minority contexts are limited.
- There's no focus on contextual teacher training for minority languages or cultures, risking continued cultural disconnect.
- Lacks discussion on targeted scholarship programs or institutional support for teachers and students from minority groups.
Girls & Women
- Infrastructure issues—such as girl-friendly toilets and safety measures—are not detailed.
- Adult women learners, single mothers, or those needing re-entry pathways are not sufficiently addressed.
- Intersectional challenges (e.g., girls from minority or disabled backgrounds) are not explicitly discussed.
Implementation Concerns
- Recommendations on infrastructure adaptation for inclusive settings (e.g., ramps for disabled students) are vague and lack actionable detail.
- Teacher bias audits and monitoring mechanisms are not clearly outlined.
- Digital equity issues—such as preparing teachers for EdTech use in under-resourced areas—receive little attention.
🧭 5. Overall Assessment
NCFTE 2009 is progressive in advocating inclusive and equitable teacher training. It sets a foundation for addressing:
- Marginalization (SC/ST, minorities, disabilities),
- Gender disparities among students,
- And aligns teacher education with justice-oriented, child-centered pedagogy.
Yet, it remains a framework rather than a roadmap—its success hinges on:
- Supplementary guidelines for linguistic, cultural, and gender-specific pedagogy,
- Detailed strategies for infrastructure, monitoring, and inclusion,
- Concrete commitments to support teachers and learners from minority and marginalized backgrounds.
✅ Suggested Next Steps
To enhance NCFTE 2009’s impact on minorities and girls, consider:
- Curriculum Modules: Develop resource packs tailored to minority languages, cultures, and gender inclusion.
- Training & Workshops: Focus on intersectionality, anti-bias education, and infrastructure adaptation.
- Monitoring & Accountability: Create rubrics, peer reviews, and community oversight to check implementation.
- Policy Integration: Link NCFTE with NEP 2020 and RTE, especially frameworks supporting special education zones and scholarships.
India’s education budget utilization, examining allocations, actual spending, and under‑utilization trends over recent years:
1. 🏛️ Budget vs. Expenditure (Centre + States)
- Total public expenditure on education (Centre and states combined) has hovered between 2.8–3.1% of GDP since at least 2013, far below the NEP’s 6% target reddit.com+9cessedu.org+9reddit.com+9themirrority.com+1financialexpress.com+1.
- In 2022–23, this figure was ~2.9% of GDP, with states covering around 89% and the Centre 11% of total education spending .
2. 🔻 Central Budget Utilization
- Under‑utilization trends:
- 2017–18: Central education schemes fell short by ~5.5% of budgeted funds .
- 2022–23: The shortfall rose to ~7%, roughly ₹7,100 crore not spent en.wikipedia.org+15financialexpress.com+15news.careers360.com+15.
- In 2023–24, of ₹1.16 lakh crore allocated to education, ₹1.08 lakh crore was spent—a ₹7,539 crore shortfall theprint.in+1en.wikipedia.org+1.
3. 📚 Scheme-Specific Utilization
- Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan:
- 2019–20: ₹36k cr allocated; only ~₹32k cr spent → ₹3.5k cr unspent prsindia.org+7news.careers360.com+7news.careers360.com+7.
- 2023–24: ₹37,453 cr allocated; ₹33,000 cr spent → ~11.8% remained unutilized en.wikipedia.org+15theprint.in+15reddit.com+15.
- PM Poshan (Mid‑Day Meal):
- 2019–20: ~₹250 cr left unspent; 2020–21 saw only ₹20 cr unspent scroll.in+7news.careers360.com+7educationforallinindia.com+7.
- 2023–24: ₹11,600 cr allocated; ₹10,000 cr spent—notably undershot .
- PM SHRI Schools (NEP‑aligned):
- Only ~30% of allocated funds utilized in FY 2023‑24; similarly low in the previous year reddit.com+6thequint.com+6theprint.in+6.
4. 📊 State-Level Spending Patterns
- States allocate ~14–15% of their total budgets to education reddit.com+11thehindubusinessline.com+11reddit.com+11.
- FY 2023–24: average was ~14.7% .
- FY 2024–25 & FY 2025–26 estimates: remain similar, with high-performing states around 14–15%, others below en.wikipedia.org+14thehindubusinessline.com+14reddit.com+14.
- Per-student allocations vary widely (e.g., ₹9,969 in Himachal Pradesh vs ₹1,727 in Maharashtra in 2019–20) reddit.com+3news.careers360.com+3scroll.in+3.
5. 📈 Overall Trends & Efficiency
Year / Scheme | Allocation | Actual Spend | Under‑utilization |
2017–18 (All schemes) | Budgeted (Centre) | ~5.5% unspent | ~5.5% |
2019–20 (SSA) | ₹36k cr | ₹32k cr | ₹3.5k cr (~10%) |
2022–23 (Centre) | Budgeted | 7% unspent (~₹7.1k cr) | ~7% |
2023–24 (Education) | ₹1.16 lakh cr | ₹1.08 lakh cr | ₹7,539 cr (~6.5%) |
2023–24 (PM SHRI) | – | ~30% utilized | ~70% unspent |
6. 🧩 Key Takeaways
- Budget allocations remain stagnant (~2.8–3% of GDP), far below NEP goals.
- Scheme-level under-utilization is common—especially in flagship programs like Samagra Shiksha and PM SHRI.
- State-level differences are significant: some states spend efficiently, others lag behind in per-student funding and fund utilization.
- Major bottlenecks seem administrative—not just budget size—hindering effective use.
✅ Conclusion
Despite consistent allocations, India's education funding is underutilized—central schemes regularly fall short by 5–15%, and key NEP-aligned initiatives like PM SHRI see usage as low as 30%. States generally allocate more than the Centre proportionally but reflect wide disparities in per-student investment and implementation efficiency.
a deeper breakdown of India’s education fund utilization, focusing on state-level trends, disparities, and systemic issues:
🗺️ State-Level Underfunding & Allocation Gaps
- Elementary education gaps (2015–16):
- Bihar needed ₹41,261 cr but spent only ₹12,803 cr.
- Jharkhand required ₹10,202 cr but spent ₹4,473 cr.
- MP needed ₹22,258 cr, spent ₹11,502 cr.
Only Tamil Nadu met basic education standards timesofindia.indiatimes.com+15scroll.in+15reddit.com+15. - Per‑pupil spending (2022–23):
- UP: ₹3,205
- Bihar: ₹3,245
- Jharkhand: ₹3,626
Average across states: ₹5,300 financialexpress.comprsindia.org. - State budget share to education (2023–24):
- National average: ~14.7 % theprint.in+7thehindubusinessline.com+7reddit.com+7
- Telangana: 7.6% (lowest) timesofindia.indiatimes.com+3reddit.com+3reddit.com+3
- Karnataka: 11%
- AP/Kerala/Tamil Nadu: 12–14%
- Rajasthan & Chhattisgarh: ~19.5% timesofindia.indiatimes.comthehindubusinessline.com.
⚠️ Underutilization of Allocated Funds
- Central schemes (2023‑24):
- Total education allocation: ₹116,000 cr, actual spend ₹108,461 cr → ₹7,539 cr unspent (~6.5%) theprint.in+1timesofindia.indiatimes.com+1.
- Samagra Shiksha: ₹37,453 cr budgeted, ₹33,000 cr spent → 11.8 % under‑utilized thehindubusinessline.com+7theprint.in+7prsindia.org+7.
- PM Poshan: ₹11,600 cr allocated, ₹10,000 cr spent → ~14% unspent timesofindia.indiatimes.com+2theprint.in+2prsindia.org+2.
- NEP flagship (PM SHRI): ₹4,000 cr allocated, ₹2,800 cr used → 30% utilization educationforallinindia.com+2theprint.in+2prsindia.org+2.
📉 Pandemic Impact & Long‑Term Trends
- COVID (2020–22):
- 14 of 21 states cut education budget share in 2020–21; in 2021–22, 12 states reduced share despite increased overall spending educationforallinindia.com+4prsindia.org+4themirrority.com+4prsindia.org+5scroll.in+5reddit.com+5.
- Post‑COVID allocation shifts:
- In 2022–23, states spent ~2.6% of GSDP on education.
- Example: Manipur (7.7%), Arunachal (7.5%)—higher shares but far from target thehindubusinessline.com+5scroll.in+5educationforallinindia.com+5financialexpress.com+2themirrority.com+2scroll.in+2.
🧩 Key Drivers Behind Under‑Utilization
- Administrative delays
- Slow fund disbursement leads to unused budgets.
- E.g., Tamil Nadu had to pay RTE dues from its own funds due to central delays timesofindia.indiatimes.com.
- Capacity and resource gaps
- States like UP have 39:1 PTR, high teacher vacancies (17% at elementary level) reddit.com+1timesofindia.indiatimes.com+1en.wikipedia.org+1reddit.com+1.
- Lack of infrastructure and staff stalls implementation.
- Fiscal misclassification
- Some welfare & subsidy spending not attributed to education (e.g., Telangana).
- Hides the true allocation to education reddit.comtimesofindia.indiatimes.comreddit.com+2financialexpress.com+2reddit.com+2.
- Political prioritization
- Shifts in state focus—e.g., states like Rajasthan approved >100% of their SSA proposal, whereas Bihar/Madhya Pradesh got only ~50% news.careers360.com.
- Loan‑based funding models
- NEP-linked funding models like HEFA and PM‑USHA require repayment, prompting fee hikes and limiting access, especially in poorer states timesofindia.indiatimes.com.
✅ Summary: What It All Means
Issue | Impact |
Allocation far below NEP target | 2.8–3.1% of GDP vs target 6% fields; central schemes leave 5–15% unspent |
State disparities | Huge per-student & GSDP % differences; pandemic reinvestment lacking |
Administrative & infrastructure gaps | High vacancy rates, under-equipped schools, delays in transfers |
Classification issues & politicization | Budget reporting distortions, strategic over/under-estimates |
🎯 Aligning Policy & Practice
To close gaps between policy intent and ground reality:
- Enforce “tied” funding: Central grants conditional on actual utilization and outcomes.
- Boost administrative capacity: Train officials, digitize fund flows, ensure timely transfers.
- Standardize budgeting practices: Prevent misclassification to ensure consistency.
- Build accountability frameworks: Cover vacancies, infra gaps, fund tracking robustly.
- Adjust funding models: Shift focus from repayable loans to accessible grants, especially for SEDGs.
No comments:
Post a Comment